Some of you might have heard about the story of the Los Angeles Police Department purchasing a "rocket launcher" as part of their gun buy-back program. The Chief made a big statement about the item and how it did not belong in their great city. Now it turns out that the "war item" is really a one-time use weapon. A totally useless piece of plastic!
Talk about getting mud all over your face!
Whenever these "holier than thou" do-gooders make stupid statements like the LAPD Chief, it shows their cards. We now know what this police chief thinks of guns and the Second Amendment. In other words, he thinks that citizens should have no way to defend themselves. It is time for him to retire!
Do you know anyone in Los Angeles? Maybe there should be a movement to remove the Chief and replace him with someone that understands the Second Amendment and its importance to a free country.
Conservative Tom
Report: It’s A Fake: Rocket Launchers Turned In To LAPD Are “Useless”
In late December, Chief Charlie Beck of the Los Angeles Police Department made national headlines when his department reported that their city’s gun buy-back program yielded two military grade rocket launchers.
“Those are weapons of war, weapons of death. These are not hunting guns. These are not target guns…they have no place in our great city.”
The mainstream media quickly disseminated the claims to unsuspecting viewers across the country.
The problem?
Well, first off, the rocket launchers are actually not rocket launchers at all. They are AT-4 M136 anti-tank grenade launchers, a significant difference in terms of capability when compared to a rocket launcher.
Moreover, and what credible journalists of the fourth estate failed to completely mention, is that the AT-4 is a single-use weapon, meaning that it is capable of firing one grenade and one grenade only, after which it is rendered inoperable.
The AT-4, once used, is totally useless as a weapon of war.
But even more absurdly, at least one of the tubes was a training piece and never fired a grenade and never could have. It was a device used only for showing young soldiers what such a weapon looks like. It is a hands-on training tool that is 100% inert, un-fireable, safe as a plastic kid’s toy gun.As Paul Szoldra explains, “It is, quite literally, a long, green fiberglass tube that does nothing.”Further, these hunks of plastic can be bought at many military surplus stores and have even turned up on on eBay in the past.Via Breitbart
So deadly are the launchers that you can go to auction site Ebay andpurchase one yourself for around $355.00:
Once again we have officials of the government touting the dangers of “weapons of war,” when in fact there is absolutely no danger.
The mainstream media, in an effort to cater to the narrative that all guns (whether real or fake) are dangerous, does no follow-up on the story and takes the government at its word, furthering the agenda to criminalize theSecond Amendment and ban the ownership of firearms.
All the while, law abiding American gun owners who vehemently argue for their right to bears arms with real facts and logic are painted as mentally unstable and as posing a danger to society.
I have been reading the Supreme Court's opinion in the Heller case. For purposes of our discussion about militia, the Court (pp. 55-56) states...
ReplyDelete"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of 55 Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and theprotected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
--------
On one hand, the Court holds that only weapons “in common use at the time" are protected. Presumably, this would include hand guns and hunting rifles, but exclude having nuclear bombs in your garage. On the other hand, the Court suggests that the allowed hand weapons may not enable the militia to fight effectively against the U.S. military with it tanks, bombers, chemical/biological weapons, etc., etc.
The Court's conclusion (I think), it that even though the militia concept of men grabbing the weapons they commonly have in their homes and effectively overthrowing a tyrannical government is antiquated, that's nonetheless the conceptual foundation of the Second Amendment.
--David
I would agree with your conclusion. If someone has AR-15s or M-16s, that would be ok to own.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, tyrannical governments have been stopped in their tracks (literally) by individuals. Tinamin Square in China is one good example of one person standing up to a tank.
That WAS my conclusion until I read the Heller case. Did you read this...
ReplyDelete"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."
The Court is saying that "M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned because the Founding Fathers only intended the Second Amendment to protect "the sorts of lawful weapons they possessed at home." If only 5% of homes have an assault rifle, does that qualify for militia protection in the eyes of this Supreme Court? I don't know -- it depends on where the Court draws the line on what types of weapons are "common" in homes. Hand guns and hunting rifles clearly qualify, since there are more than enough for every man to have at least one, and most do. The most deadly military weapons clearly do not qualify, since none of us owns any of them. Between these extremes is every other weapon sold, which includes assault rifles, large clips, etc. So, having read the Heller opinion today, I am not nearly as sure today as I was yesterday that this Supreme Court would not uphold an assault weapons ban.
I agree that a tyrannical government can be overthrown by (mostly) peaceful and persistent civil disobedience. There were only 846 confirmed deaths in the Egyptian revolution. That makes a lot more sense than armed combat with the military (compare Syria).
--David
Did you know that fully automatic "Tommy Guns" are legal?
ReplyDeleteThe Egyptian revolution has not ended, you will probably see more deaths there.
The operative question from the Heller case is not whether Tommy Guns are legal today, but rather are they common enough in homes to meet the Supreme Court test for what kinds of weapons are allowed in a militia.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many homes have Tommy Guns, but I'd be surprised if it is not way less than 5%. So, unless the Supreme Court were to define "common" in a very uncommon way, Tommy Guns would fall into the same category as the more deadly military weapons. But, like I said, we are not going to know how this Supreme Court is going to interpret its own doctrine in the Heller case unless some kind of assault weapons ban gets passed (or the dastardly Obama allows the UN to confiscate all the guns!), and neither of those is going to happen.
I see that Egyptians are planning a new round of peaceful protests on the anniversary of the overthrow of Mubarak. And I agree there will likely be some clashes with the military and people killed. Steady pressure through peaceful protest is the way to go, as opposed to armed combat against the military as in Syria. Assad may eventually fall from power, but not before the country is ravished and God-knows what comes to power after him, but it is hard to imagine anything other than an autocratic government.
--David
I am sure that Tommy Guns are way less than 5%--they are more an antique than a defensive weapon now.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: If you had the choice of no one can own weapons except the government or the current situation which would you agree to?
As far as Syria and Egypt, both will eventually become Islamic states governed by Sharia law.
I heard that there are around 300 millon guns in the U.S. So, even if they were all declared illegal tomorrow, there is no practical way for the government to confiscate them all. I have several guns, and keep one loaded for home protection. I am never going to surrender them, register them, pay fees, etc. on any of them. I hope that answers your question.
ReplyDeleteAs for Syria, assuming Assad eventually falls, I can see it easily becoming a military dictatorship such as existed in Iraq under Saddam.
--David
Glad to hear that you are a gun owner and that you feel so strongly against the government tactics! Let's hope there are 250 million Americans who feel the same way. (The discrepency in numbers is there are those Nancy Pilosi and Diane Fienstein type who will never agree.)
ReplyDeleteI am beginning to think that Assad will not fall anytime soon. He still controls the cities and has a large following. Time will tell and I do not have enough "on the ground" information to make any credible guess.
Update on the Syrian war...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169305322/status-report-on-fighting-in-aleppo-syria
As you see from this article, it has settled into a war of attrition. Assad's problem now seems to be defections from his own military and inner circle. Unless some political leaders emerge from the ranks of the rebels, there will be utter chaos if Assad finally gives up and goes into exile. Normally, that is where the military would fill the void and become the de-facto government.
--David